User login

Questions for Richard Clarke Regarding Pre-9/11 Intelligence

It is encouraging that former White House Counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke is willing to meet with members of the 9/11 truth movement and discuss pre-9/11 intelligence. So far he has provided some interesting revelations about the CIA's operational interest in two of the accused hijackers, Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, and the agency's attempt to withhold information from the FBI about these individuals, despite knowing they were members of Al-Qaeda and living in the US.

Let us take advantage of this golden opportunity to ask Clarke a few more questions. Here's 10:

1. Who wrote the August 6 memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US?" Who prepared this PDB for the president and Dr. Rice?

2. Who in our government maintained "intimate relations with Bin Laden all the way up until 9/11?" This is a bombshell statement made by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds and others.

3. Do you personally regret any opportunities that you had to capture Bin Laden prior to 9/11?

4. When did Dick Cheney arrive at the PEOC on the morning of 9/11? Dr. Rice was part of your video teleconference call and left to join the V.P. in the bunker. Do you recall what time that was? What do you think of Cheney's claim that he did not arrive until almost 10:00 am.?

5. In times of a domestic attack, does the Secret Service take rank over the DoD? And how do you see the Secret Service's failure to remove the president from harm's way in the classroom when it was known the nation was under attack?

6. Who scheduled the drill of a plane flying into the CIA's National Reconnaissance Office outside Washington on the morning of 9/11? This exercise evacuated their building during the attack. Is this just a bizarre coincidence?

7. You reveal that the CIA tried to recruit two of the 9/11 pilots before they entered our country and then withheld the fact that they were living in the US from the FBI. Does this mean that the agency indeed establishes operatives in terror networks as a matter of policy, including Muslim terrorists?

8. What intelligence did you have before 9/11 on Mohammed Atta, accused ringleader? What about his ties to flight schools and individuals involved with CIA drug trafficking?

9. Do you know what a false flag operation is? Have you ever heard of P2OG? Given the CIA's long history with Al-Qaeda, do you think that 9/11 could have been a false flag?

10. Given the 9/11 Commission co-chairs' admission that their investigation was "set up to fail," and your own allegations of a CIA cover-up, do you support a new 9/11 investigation with full subpoena power? If so, would you be willing to testify under oath?

If this is true, then I strongly disapprove of such covert operations using elements of Al Qaeda
against our geopolitical rivals, such as China. This kind of cynical opportunism and adventurism
with terrorists who wish our country harm erodes and undermines the public's confidence in our
intelligence services and their ability to protect us from attack.

On a sidenote, some people treat Sibel Edmonds the same way you folks treat me, for example, have
you fellas read this comment at the link above?

"Sibel Edmonds can keep singing her song but a detailed evaluation of the evidence, or lack there of, is compelling enough to substantiate that there were no hijackers. So how does Sibel fit into this anomaly when she claims to have inside knowledge of flesh and blood hijackers when obviously the only hijackers were the cardboard cutout ones that the Federal government wrote into their 9/11 conspiracy script?"

If these are the kind of paranoid nuts you have in your movement, then why should whistleblowers
like Sibel and me even talk to you anymore? Are you aware that Dick Cheney openly blamed ME for 9/11?
As if I need you guys to pile on me as well.

3. I should not have saved the lives of my friends in the UAE royal family when I had the opportunity to
take Bin Laden out with them as collateral damage. I'm sorry. Apparently some think this means I am a
'key conspirator' in the 9/11 attacks. I am appalled by such accusations. In fact, you should count
yourself lucky I'm even willing to answer your questions.

4. You can buy my book, it's all in there. Man's gotta eat. Why haven't you read it yet, by the way?

5. The Secret Service. Their failure to evacuate the President was catastrophic. All I could think was:
get him the hell out of there! I can't understand why they chose to stay put. I can't imagine Bush
orchestrating 9/11, either. That's just because I knew him... he's anything but a pleasant man but
this...

6. NRO's internal wargaming division. The exercise was run by John Fulton, head of this division. I read
this on one of your excellent sites. Don't you guys read your own websites? And why are you asking me this
specifically? I don't run the NRO. A spokesman for the NRO apparently said it was a coincidence. Who am I
to say otherwise?

7. The CIA didn't try to recruit pilots but hijackers: Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi. And so far,
this is only a possibility: I said I have no proof of this. It seemed like the only logical explanation
to me. Is this a matter of policy? That's what Cofer Black told me they wanted, so yes, I would have to
concur.

8. We may have had more on Mohammed Atta than I initially thought, but again, somehow this information
failed to make it to my desk. I haven't heard about the drug trafficking information before, could you
show me? Wally Hilliard? Dan Hopsicker? Who's that? Seems like bit of a goofball. Have you ever asked
Rudi Dekkers for comment? That's what journalists do right? It's called "audi alterem partem" in a court
of law. You haven't? Oh.

9. Yes. Yes. No, and all the CIA wanted to do with Al Qaeda is keep an eye on them. They screwed up and
tried to cover their asses. I'm not saying I know everything that occured, or everything that happened
outside my ability to know or be aware of, but that's my position. I'm not publicly accusing my government
of treason without some better evidence.

What's this? Nano-Termites? Bentham? Ah, I heard about that on Fox News. Wasn't one of the primary
authors also involved in "fake earthquake" research and "free energy"? Look, I have an MS from MIT, one
of the most prestigious universities in the country. If they saw a professor behaving like that, he'd be
relieved of his teaching duties. BYU actually did? But not because of that? Oh, so others confirmed the
findings? Except this French guy who disconfirmed it? Two editors-in-chief quit the journal where the
paper was published? And the peer review process involved a friend of the group, also a 9/11 Truther
who believes the passengers of the hijacked flights are alive and well, "sweetened by handsome Swiss
bank accounts?"

Well, I'm sorry, obviously I can't put much stake in that until some more credible people get involved.

10. Yes, absolutely, and yes.

You're welcome, although next time you might ask some questions which I have more specific knowledge
about, like Duffy and Nowosielski did, although I've heard many of you chose to accuse them of being
involved in the cover-up for even interviewing me instead. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Don't you know an opportunity when you see one? Have you consulted with the 9/11 Family Members?

Let me ask you a question too, before I go. Were you really interested in the answers I gave you?

I bet he does (and so do I, I've read the paper), but I was trying to illustrate (with satire) the totally different worlds some people live in. I'm not Richard Clarke. And this was never about Richard Clarke anyway. This is about the work of Schopmeyer and Fenton, but people seem to be unable to get that through their heads. They have to make this about Richard Clarke now, and how we all think he's the new messiah, for whom we're going to sacrifice everything we knew before, in exchange for His favor.

Where was General Richard Myers during the whole ordeal? According to Myers himself and the 9/11 Commission report he was on Capitol Hill meeting with Senator Max Cleland and he did not arrive at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center until right before 10:00AM.

"At 9:44, NORAD briefed the conference on the possible hijacking of Delta 1989.Two minutes later, staff reported that they were still trying to locate Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice Chairman Myers. The Vice Chairman joined the conference shortly before 10:00;..."9/11 Commission Report

According to Richard Clarke he was participating in a video conference that Clarke was holding from the White House Video Teleconference Center. In his book Richard Clarke recalls a conversation that he had with Myers.

Clarke: "JCS. I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?"

Myers: "Not a pretty picture Dick...We are in the midst of Viligant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but...Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now."

Clarke: "Okay, how long to CAP over D.C.?"

Myers: "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?" Myers asked, looking as the generals and colonels around him. It was now 9:28.
Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies

Has Richard Clarke ever been asked about this situation and why his account differs? Obviously, Richard Clarke is one of the most well-informed individuals on 9/11 and terrorism. I'm certain that he has read the 9/11 Commission report but it is strange that these contradictions are never brought to light. Are they concerned that discussing these issues publicly will provide too much fodder for 9/11 truthers? In an interview with Evan Solomon, Lee Hamilton was asked about another contradiction between the 9/11 Commssion report and Richard Clarke. His best response was, "Look, you’ve obviously gone through the report with a fine-toothed comb, you're raising a lot of questions..."

The fact that the most mundane of topics can't be resolved is indicative of how radioactive any questioning of 9/11 is.

Richard Clarke was loudly ringing alarm bells about Al Qaeda all the way up to 9/11. He was demoted and ignored. Clarke apologized to the American people and took responsibility, while he knew where the real responsibility was. He would later explain that in his book. Later, Dick Cheney publicly blamed Richard Clarke for 9/11. Now Clarke is pointing the finger at several figures including former CIA director George Tenet, and accusing them of lying under oath about 9/11 to cover up a scheme to withhold information that could have stopped 9/11. I know Clarke is a controversial character, but you are simplifying the issue beyond any rational norm.

'No hijacker' claims are pretty broad; ranging from them being labeled complete myths to clueless patsies who had no attack plan but were placed on board the planes to take the blame, and did not attempt to hijack anything. Given that, either you drop no hijacker claims and credit Clarke for trying to stop the attack, or .... you hold on to no hijacker theory and you don't get to blame him for failing to stop a ghost. And... You accuse him of being a 'key conspirator'. It wouldn't be pretty but at least it would be consistent.

Clarke's book is called "Against All Enemies".

What's the rest of that expression? The full version of it goes something like: "Against all enemies foreign and domestic"

Now why did Richard Clarke choose that title? It's the oath of office, a statement of loyalty to the Constitution. Who is that domestic enemy Clarke is clearly referring to? It's a no-brainer. The Bush administration.

ETA: Richard Clarke is not the source of this information. The source of this information are brave 9/11 researchers. These facts were unearthed and will have to be addressed with or without Richard Clarke. This is not about Richard Clarke. Clarke is merely an insider who is admitting there is no favorable explanation for the facts dug up by researchers like Erik Larson, Robert Schopmeyer and Kevin Fenton, who are not getting the credit they deserve.

What's the rest of that expression? The full version of it goes something like: "Against all enemies foreign and domestic"

Now why did Richard Clarke choose that title? It's the oath of office, a statement of loyalty to the Constitution. Who is that domestic enemy Clarke is clearly referring to? It's a no-brainer. The Bush administration.

Richard Clarke and many others took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That means he pledges to take action as soon as he learns about criminal activity.

He has a duty to go to a federal judge IMMEDIATELY and tell what he knows. If he fails he can be charged with Misprision of Felony and/or Misprision of Treason.

Waiting until he is under the spotlight to apologize to the 9/11 Commission and the families is not satisfactory.

I demand Richard Clarke and George Tenet be stripped of their status and their fat retirement checks!!

They did not protect. They did not do their jobs properly. They were rewarded for their incompetence.

While I try to obtain an actual copy of Mr. CounterTerrorism's Oath, I offer this:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

******************
OK. So let’s assume that Mr. Clarke’s 2004 book title is taken from the section of the oath that deals with enemies, foreign and domestic. [I’ll agree with that until I can verify otherwise]. Let’s read on.

It says “…and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

Did you solemnly swear (or affirm) Mr. Clarke?

I must ask this, because you openly admitted before the 9/11 Commission (24 MAR 2004) that you failed the American people. That tells me you knew then, and you know now, that you did not faithfully discharge your official duties.

The duties you have as a citizen are in addition to the ones you have as an employee. You had a duty to report treason as soon as you became aware.

Now I must ask, WHEN did you learn that the CIA had informed the FBI as early as 21 AUG 2001?

If it was after the damage was done, after 9/11, then that exonerates you for the failure to stop the attacks. But this does not exonerate those in the CIA, nor in the FBI, because they took similar oaths of office.

We know from the latest video that you knew before OCT 2009. Why have you not gone to a federal judge in the last 22 months?

You wrote a book in 2008 titled Your Government Failed You. Why didn’t you go 34 months ago?

Why didn’t you honor your oath and go to the proper authorities on March 23, 2004? Why are we still hearing about your good intentions now 89 months later?

You are quick to point out the failures of 50 or more intelligence workers, but can’t see that #51 has yet to step up to the plate.

I have a suggestion. Why don’t you and Dr. Steve Pieczenik carpool yourselves right down to the closest state or federal prosecutor’s office and offer to tell everything you know, UNDER OATH?

Is there anything left called ACCOUNTABILITY? Or do these scam artists get away with every lame-ass excuse for their failures? "It wasn't me--It was THEM".

Oh, we couldn't step on the FBI's toes. We wanted to develop the asset for ourselves. Meantime, while they are keeping workers with integrity (Rowley, etc) throttled, some other triple-cross, back-stabbing team is planning the murder of 3,000 innocents in broad daylight. Right in their own offices! One black-op team doing something today that will require another team to respond tomorrow. Job security.

Richard Clarke has been duped into thinking he is getting all intelligence when he admittedly is getting only a portion.

Sure, I have the same demands of all who were complicit: REFUND!! I can't keep track of them all. Black and Blee is what I am. Bent over. Gang raped.

Look at Clarke's mannerisms. Does that look like normal facial expression to you? He reminds me of Larry Silverstein..

If Clarke only has one murderous rampage every decade he keeps getting compensated. He was on the job back in '93 when the WTC got compromised by the FBI handlers. Six dead, a thousand hurt. Hundreds of millions spent to retrofit the Towers.

It sounds to me like you are defending him. Is that what I hear? You're buying this tripe?

What you're selling instead: hardly a mention of Tenet, Black, Wilshire, Corsi, Blee, and a full on assault on the one person who did commit to an interview.

Yeah, I appreciate Clarke's acknowledgment of the research of Schopmeyer/Fenton/Larson, and it's the research and the facts that matter, not any single explanation.

Yeah, I'm enthusiastic about Duffy & Nowosielski's work.

No, I don't appreciate the relentless bayoneting of the Richard Clarke straw man instead of much needed appreciation for this pre-9/11 intelligence research.

Somebody would have talked, right? We now know that if somebody does, we'll crucify that person, kill the messenger, and ignore the message or the underlying, independent research because it might (gasp) imply there were hijackers instead of voice morphed actors. Hell, we'll even accuse the interviewee of being a 'key conspirator'. I'm fed up with the misdirection of energy.

It is completely odd behavior to see these folk's attack dog style critiques of Clarke timed with his most recent interview. The hypocrisy comes from the combo of the provocative attacks coupled with little to NO discussion of Tenet and the CIA schills surrounding him. Why the current attackers of Clarkes history are NOT AT ALL discussing the current info he is shedding light on is truly startling. It is upsetting because the implication is that folks are attacking someone who is currently opening minds to 9/11 truth on a massive scale. I don't care if Clarke has done sketchy things in the past. These timing of the types of critiques like this article we are commenting on, will not be forgotten by those of us who have seen Clarke's interview as a HUGE opportunity.

If your goal is to scare people from spreading this new info which Clarke has pointed out YOU WILL FAIL.
If your goal is to push all the blame on Clarke and ignore the fact that we have a huge opportunity to question TENET, YOU WILL FAIL.
If your goal is to scare away people like Clarke from doing more interviews with those seeking justice for 9/11 YOU WILL FAIL.

Since I don't know or care what the intentions of the authors of the recent "question Clarke" articles, I can only say that your timing is piss-poor. Also your analysis not including any critical work of Tenet and the CIA, and their knowledge of elements of the attacks is downright odd, hypocritical and appears like "shoot the messenger" and "snitch jacket" tactics (regardless of your intent).